DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 05/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending in the application, claim 18 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2,5, 7-9, 11-12, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (CN 108647504) in view of Sengupta et al. (US 20190266337).
Regarding claim 1, Deng teaches:
A computer system (Fig. 2: “mobile terminal”) including:
a display screen (#21 of Fig. 2: “display”)
a time-of-flight sensor disposed in a vicinity of the screen (#23 of Fig. 2: “depth camera”), the time-of-flight sensor being configured to determine a distance for each zone and acquire distance information for the several zones of a scene facing the screen in the field of view of the time-of-flight sensor [“depth camera 23 for obtaining the user face, all or part of the human face image of the non-authorized person, depth information of the environment, user or other non-authorized human eyeball gaze direction information, expression characteristic information and so on,”]; and
a processor configured to:
determine a presence of a user of the computer system in the scene; [Text description of Figure 2: “proximity sensor for sensing the physical distance between the user and the display … and transmitted to the processor 20, so that the processor 20 indirectly wake up the sleep intelligent mobile terminal“]
detect a presence of at least one individual other than the user from the distance information acquired by the time-of-flight sensor [Text description of Step S31 from Fig. 3: “obtaining the face image. obtaining the human face image of the user and the depth information of the user space in a certain range by the depth camera and the related software; It can be understood that, if there is other non-authorized face in the space range, other non-authorized face image should be obtained together;” and text description of Step S32 from Fig. 3: “The face of the non-authorized person is detected.”]; and
inform the user when a presence of the at least one individual other than the user is detected [Text description of Step S35 from Fig. 3: “for the presence of non-authorized person snoop display condition, the processor performs anti-snoop operation, the specific operation comprises but not limited to: sending the reminding alarm by the audio device, or outputting the reminding mark through the display”].
Deng does not teach:
The time of flight sensor being multi-zone, the time-of-flight sensor being configured to section its field of view into several zones, each zone being delimited horizontally and vertically,
However, Sengupta teaches:
The time of flight sensor being multi-zone, the time-of-flight sensor being configured to section its field of view into several zones, each zone being delimited horizontally and vertically [41: “In some examples, the depth sensor(s) 108 of FIGS. 1-4 sense(s), measure(s) and/or detect(s) depth data over multiple zones located within the field of view of the depth sensor(s) 108. Multi-zone depth data obtained via the depth sensor(s) 108 of FIGS. 1-4 can be represented by a grid having an associated number of zones defined by the rows and columns of the grid“],
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth camera of Deng to use a multi-zone time of flight sensor similar to Sengupta with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing parallax between the IR intensity image and the depth image. Deng recites a TOF sensor, but does not specify what kind of TOF sensor is used, Sengupta merely fills in the gaps. [Deng: “In some embodiments, can utilize based on TOF (time flight method) technology of depth camera, the projection device 602 for emitting light pulse, and the image collecting device 607 by receiving light pulse, a processor for recording pulse emitting and receiving the used time. and calculating the depth image of the user according to the time. At this time, the image acquisition device 607 can obtain the depth image and the infrared image of the user at the same time, and there is no parallax between the two.”].
Regarding claim 2, Deng, as modified above, teaches:
the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a presence of elements of the scene in the field of view of the time-of-flight sensor from the distance information acquired by the time-of-flight sensor; [Text description of step S31 from Fig. 3: “obtaining the face image. obtaining the human face image of the user and the depth information of the user space in a certain range by the depth camera and the related software; It can be understood that, if there is other non-authorized face in the space range, other non-authorized face image should be obtained together;”] and
determine whether some of these elements correspond to individuals other than the user [Text description of Step S32: “ In some equivalent embodiments, the processor can also by analyzing the human face number obtained in S31, quickly identifying whether there is non-authorized face, namely when the human face number in the space is more than the authorized face number when there is non-authorized face.”].
Regarding claim 5, Deng, as modified above, teaches:
the system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to determine that an element corresponds to an individual other than the user when the element appeared in the scene at a distance, relative to the time-of-flight sensor, close to a distance from a previously detected individual [Claim 6: “or the eyeball gaze time data is obtained by calculating, analyzing at least two of the non-authorized human eyeball position change amplitude is less than the preset critical value of the continuous human face image”].
Regarding claim 7, Deng, as modified above, teaches:
the system according to claim 2, further comprising a camera [Text description of Fig. 1: “depth camera 12 comprises a projection device, an image collecting device or further comprises an RGB camera”], wherein the processor is configured to acquire images of the scene in front of the screen (step #S31 of Fig. 3, [“step S31: obtaining the face image”]) after detecting an element using the time-of-flight sensor (step #S34 returns to Step #S31 in Fig. 3, [“when the gaze time is less than the preset critical gaze time, not satisfying the snoop condition, determining that the non-authorized person does not have snoop behaviour, and keeping the state of the current display; when the gaze time is greater than the preset critical time, meeting the snoop condition, identifying the non-authorized person snoop behaviour, and entering the next step.”]).
Regarding claim 8, Deng, as modified above, teaches:
the system according to claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to check, based on a face recognition algorithm, whether the determined element is actually the individual [“In some embodiments, a human face recognition system based on depth camera, three-dimensional information of matching the target face and the three-dimensional information of the authorized face information, and calculating and analyzing the difference between the two, realizing the recognition function of the face”, “analyzing the difference between the human face image obtained in step S31 and the pre-stored authorized face image all or part of the face feature information; judging whether there is non-authorized face information..”].
Regarding claim 9, Deng, as modified above, teaches:
teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to inform the user by displaying an alert message on the screen [Text description of Step S35 from Fig. 3: “for the presence of non-authorized person snoop display condition, the processor performs anti-snoop operation, the specific operation comprises but not limited to: sending the reminding alarm by the audio device, or outputting the reminding mark through the display”].
Claim 11 is identical in scope to claim 1, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 12 is identical in scope to claim 2, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 15 is identical in scope to claim 5, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 17 is identical in scope to claim 8 , and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 20 is identical in scope to claim 9, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Sengupta as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Buck (US 8973149).
Regarding claim 3, Deng, as modified above, teaches:
The system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine that an element corresponds to an individual other than the user when:
the element is movable between several successive acquisitions of the time-of-flight sensor [Claim 6: “or the eyeball gaze time data is obtained by calculating, analyzing at least two of the non-authorized human eyeball position change amplitude is less than the preset critical value of the continuous human face image”],
the element remained in the scene longer than a user-defined duration [Claim 7: "and the eyeball gaze time of the non-authorized person exceeds the preset critical time"]
Deng does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine that an element corresponds to an individual other than the user when:
the element is not a closest element to the time-of-flight sensor, and
the element appeared in the scene after the user of the computer system, or
the element is located at a distance, relative to the time-of-flight sensor, less than or equal to a maximum distance defined by the user, and
However, Buck teaches:
Determining that the closest pixels represent the user [“In this specific embodiment, pixels representing an object closest or nearest to the sensor can be designated as foreground pixels because the object is likely to be the user. Pixels representing objects further away from the sensor can be designated as background pixels.”]
Determining if an observer is close enough to view the screen (less than or equal to a maximum distance) (“the system can estimate the distance of the potential observer from the device, and given the currently displayed font size on the device for the information can use a configurable parameter to assess whether there is a risk of information on the device being effectively viewed by the observer”), and
determining that an element appeared in the scene after the user of the computer system is an onlooker [“If the system detects any change in the background then privacy measures are initiated”]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the snoop detector of Deng to use techniques similar to Buck with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the system and preventing excessive warnings to the user, which Buck teaches can be disruptive (Buck: [“Constantly warning the user about these types of short and inadvertent glances can be disruptive”]).
Regarding claim 4, Deng, as modified above, teaches:
The system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine that an element corresponds to an individual other than the user when:
the element is movable between several successive acquisitions of the time-of-flight sensor [Claim 6: “or the eyeball gaze time data is obtained by calculating, analyzing at least two of the non-authorized human eyeball position change amplitude is less than the preset critical value of the continuous human face image”],
the element remained in the scene longer than a user-defined duration [Claim 7: "and the eyeball gaze time of the non-authorized person exceeds the preset critical time"]
Deng does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine that an element corresponds to an individual other than the user when:
the element is not a closest element to the time-of-flight sensor , and
the element is located at a distance, relative to the time-of-flight sensor, less than or equal to a maximum distance defined by the user, and
the element appeared in the scene after the user of the computer system
However, Buck teaches:
Determining that the closest pixels represent the user [“In this specific embodiment, pixels representing an object closest or nearest to the sensor can be designated as foreground pixels because the object is likely to be the user. Pixels representing objects further away from the sensor can be designated as background pixels.”]
Determining if an observer is close enough to view the screen (less than or equal to a maximum distance) (“the system can estimate the distance of the potential observer from the device, and given the currently displayed font size on the device for the information can use a configurable parameter to assess whether there is a risk of information on the device being effectively viewed by the observer”), and
determining that an element appeared in the scene after the user of the computer system is an onlooker [“If the system detects any change in the background then privacy measures are initiated”]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the snoop detector of Deng to use techniques similar to Buck with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the system and preventing excessive warnings to the user, which Buck teaches can be disruptive (Buck: [“Constantly warning the user about these types of short and inadvertent glances can be disruptive”]).
Regarding claim 6, Deng, as modified above, teaches:
The system according to claim 2,
wherein the processor is configured to filter the determined elements before determining whether the filtered elements correspond to individuals, the filtered elements corresponding to the elements which are sufficiently separated from the others elements (“The processor executes at least two kinds of information/data processing successively or simultaneously, specifically comprising: 1. The processor accesses and extracts the information data of the authorized human face in the memory by calling the related program; 2, the processor through image comparison algorithm, image defogging optimization algorithm, contrast enhancement algorithm and other related image feature extraction algorithm (such as image feature point comparison algorithm based on OpenCV software, image lamination algorithm, etc.), contrast, analyzing the difference between the human face image obtained in step S31 and the pre-stored authorized face image all or part of the face feature information; judging whether there is non-authorized face information.”)
Deng does not teach, but Buck does teach:
filtering the elements which are located at a distance from the time-of-flight sensor which is less than a given distance (“In an embodiment, the system can estimate the distance of the potential observer from the device, and given the currently displayed font size on the device for the information can use a configurable parameter to assess whether there is a risk of information on the device being effectively viewed by the observer. E.g., 20/20 vision (based on a Snellen Eye Chart) for the observer allows the observer to read a font size 15 point at a distance of 7 feet, or a font size of 21 point at a distance of 10 feet. For the given font size used for display of information, the system can have a configurable measure of visual acuity for an observer, e.g., 20/10 (which is not unusual), and engage the privacy protection features if the observer is close enough to read the information, else not.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Deng to use filtering techniques similar to Buck with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the system and preventing excessive warnings to the user, which Buck teaches can be disruptive (Buck: [“Constantly warning the user about these types of short and inadvertent glances can be disruptive”]).
Claim 13 is identical in scope to claim 3 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 14 is identical in scope to claim 4 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 16 is identical in scope to claim 6 and is rejected for the reasons stated above
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Sengupta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drader et al. (US 20130153754)
Regarding claim 10, Deng, as modified above, teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
Deng does not teach:
wherein the time-of-flight sensor includes an array of avalanche effect diodes, which are triggerable by an individual photon.
However, Drader teaches:
It is known to use a SPAD array for distance measurement [6: “To perform a distance measurement, it is known to light a detection area with a pulsed light source such as a pulsed laser source, and to detect photons reflected by an object present in the detection area using a set of SPAD photodiodes”]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth camera of Deng to use a SPAD array similar to Drader with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the sensitivity of the depth camera to low photon fluxes, allowing for the use of an efficient low power emission source.
Claim 19 is identical in scope to claim 10, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Sengupta and Mortens et al. (US 20190213309)
Regarding claim 21, Deng teaches:
A method for detecting at least one individual other than a user of a computer system (Fig. 2: “mobile terminal”) having a display screen (#21 of Fig. 2: “display”) and a camera (#23 of Fig. 2: “depth camera”), the method comprising:
repeatedly acquiring, by a time-of-flight sensor disposed in a vicinity of the screen (Fig. 3 shows that step #S31 obtaining the face image by the depth camera is repeated),
distance information of several zones of a scene facing the screen in a field of view of the time-of-flight sensor, the distance information comprising a distance value for each of the several zones [“the depth camera 23 for obtaining the user face, all or part of the human face image of the non-authorized person, depth information of the environment, user or other non-authorized human eyeball gaze direction information, expression characteristic information and so on”];
Deng does not teach:
without activating the camera, detecting a presence of at least one individual other than the user directly from the distance information from the time-of-flight sensor; and
upon detecting the presence of the at least one individual, activating the camera of the computer system to acquire images of the scene to confirm that the at least one individual is facing the screen.
However, Sengupta teaches:
Detecting a presence of at least one individual other than the user directly from the distance information from the time-of-flight-sensor; [40: ”When encountering and/or evaluating the third scenario 400 of FIG. 4, the computing device 102 detects, based on depth data obtained via the depth sensor(s) 108, that the onlooker 302 is present within the field of view of the depth sensor(s) 108”]
Additionally, Morestin teaches:
Selectively activating a camera when a potential user is detected using a depth sensor [84: “Upon the presence detection from the time of flight sensor 225, the sensor 225 may output signals including the sensed data to the control block 250 including the processor 255 and the power management circuit 260. The power management circuit 260 may deactivate the first mode of the time of flight sensor 225 since user presence has been confirmed, and activate the RGB camera 240 for face detection”]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile terminal of Deng to use only time of flight data to determine the presence of an onlooker similar to Sengupta with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing the power consumption of the system (Sengupta: [22: “As an additional advantage, the depth sensor(s) may consume an amount of power in connection with capturing and/or collecting the depth data that is lower (e.g., substantially less) than the amount of power consumed by a camera in connection with capturing and/or collecting image data that is equivalent to the depth data”]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to then further modify the terminal of Deng to activate the camera of Deng when a presence is detected similar to Mortens using an onlooker detector similar to Sengupta. This would have the predictable result of maintaining the accuracy of the system and allowing for the onlooker detection techniques of Deng to be used while increasing power efficiency when no onlooker is present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 paragraph 5 – page 2 paragraph 2, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sengupta.
Sengupta teaches a multi-zone time of flight sensor with each zone being delimited horizontally and vertically. Deng uses a TOF sensor, but does not specify what kind of TOF sensor is used, Sengupta merely fills in the gaps.
With respect to the arguments provided on page 2 paragraphs 3-4, claim 21 is newly presented and has been addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights